Would you support a Fourth Branch of the U.S. Government?

I believe that the rights we have at the state level should extend to the national level as well; this includes the rights of recall, referendum, and initiative.
 
twocows said:
I believe that the rights we have at the state level should extend to the national level as well; this includes the rights of recall, referendum, and initiative.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not advocating for a direct democracy, rather a mixed republican with elements of direct democracy.

Not every issue would be on a ballot. It takes x amount of signatures to have a recall, referendum, or initiative placed on the ballot.
 
No. Trying to get "the people" more involved usually just results in impulse actions.

Heck that's one of the main reasons why people WANT to get rid of the initiative system here in California.
 
Netto Azure said:
No. Trying to get "the people" more involved usually just results in impulse actions.

Heck that's one of the main reasons why people WANT to get rid of the initiative system here in California.
Click to expand...

That would fail if put to a vote. Californians value their right to control their government.
 
lx_theo said:
Hense the impulse actions he noted before.
Click to expand...

It can't even be put to a vote. That would be a constitutional revision, not an amendment. That needs a super-majority of the Legislature to pass.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
It can't even be put to a vote. That would be a constitutional revision, not an amendment. That needs a super-majority of the Legislature to pass.
Click to expand...

So it has little to nothing to do with what the people of California want?
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
That would fail if put to a vote.
Click to expand...

FreakyLocz14 said:
It can't even be put to a vote.
Click to expand...
lol

Alright, so this thread advocates the creation of a fourth branch of government: the "People's Branch?" The only thing is, the American people already have the right to vote!

1) The power to referendum any piece of legislation that is passed by Congress.

Voting out politicians, having rallies, demonstrations, protests... all of these are things the public can engage in to show their support or opposition to particular pieces of legislation.

2) The power to recall federal elected officials by their constituents.

If you mean the President, then that's what we have national elections and primaries for. If you mean somebody like the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, then you have to keep in mind that such a figure serves a particularly long term of 14 years--and this is in order to keep him from looking to the short term and only making policy decisions based on what would seem expedient, especially if he were faced with the threat of recall (or a shorter term like a Congressman).

3) The power to place ballot initiatives on the ballot for a national vote as a way of creating federal laws.

For states, you can amend the state constitution to have ballot initiatives. On the national level... the American people need only show their support, be it through protests, demonstrations, rallies, threats of recall elections, or threats of voting one out of office.

This proposal sounds like a rather juvenile perception of how our government is supposed to work. The people vote for their representatives, and the representatives craft, vote on, and enforce legislation that the people support. If those representatives stop serving their constituent's interests, then they will be not be re-elected. This is how the process works. Yes, it may take a while, it may be slow, and it may not be able to capitulate to reactionary public outcry on command, but this is actually a good thing.

Given how our media works today, where the minutia of everyday events are wildly inflated to sound like national catastrophe, or bogeymen are invented to scare the public into holding a certain perception... if our government were to answer to this frenzy through threats of recall and referendums, coupled with the degree of frequency and limited amount of time to analyze the proposals and decisions which would be voted on by such measures... it would appear to me that we would only stand to lose even more influence to special interests who hope to influence the public.

This is one great advantage to having a fair few number of elections only a certain number of years. The American people have time to study the candidates and learn about them and make an informed decision when voting, a situation we wouldn't have if we were allowed to vote and enact change whenever a popular majority decided upon it.

And if this "branch" were to actually be created, I would fear just how it would come to be formed. Who's to say its positions wouldn't be appointed by powerful special interests, and under the guise of representing "the people," forever silence the real American people's voice?

Isn't that really the problem with this country--our low voter turnout? You should advocate for mandatory voting in this country! I think providing greater access to voting places and providing a means of providing information about candidates and issues would make for a much more effective campaign to reform this country's politics than creating this "branch" that assumes most of the same duties and responsibilities that the public can and do on their own.

Of course, on the subject of increasing voter registration, you had organizations like ACORN that no longer exist. Is it no wonder that is the case? You will hear that such organizations were involved in various scandals and that we should therefore defund them--but remember, that's the power of media spreading lies, namely Fox News. ACORN helped people living in poorer communities register to vote, and it should be no surprise that such individuals would typically vote for Democrats. Certainly it would be in the interest of Republicans, then, to minimize the number of programs (like ACORN) which help out their political opponents.

That's what the problem is--there's a game being played that reduces the amount of voter turnout in this country, not increase it. I feel if we had near 100% voter turnout and improved public education on the issues, we could significantly improve the perception of Washington not working for the people.

It need not be through some "fourth branch" that would likely be a ruse to cheat the American people out of the influence they have.
 
It'd give people too much power. This is why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Direct democracies don't work because people have too much power and people are generally ignorant.
 
Magmaruby and Aquasapphire said:
Or we could simply have the smartest people vote like Greece did...
Click to expand...

That's called "Oligarchy" and it's closer to a dictatorship than to anything else, because who would be the one to decide who's "smart" enough to vote? If you want to make the Government more open to the people, why would you remove political rights from citizens? it makes no sense :\
 
Went said:


That's called "Oligarchy" and it's closer to a dictatorship than to anything else, because who would be the one to decide who's "smart" enough to vote? If you want to make the Government more open to the people, why would you remove political rights from citizens? it makes no sense :\
Click to expand...

A lot of people in this thread gave off that idea. "People are too ignornant/too stupid to vote". I think that's a dangerous line of thought in a free society.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
A lot of people in this thread gave off that idea. "People are too ignornant/too stupid to vote". I think that's a dangerous line of thought in a free society.
Click to expand...

It's not that I think "People are too ignorant/too stupid to vote" I just think that people will be too easily manipulated to act a certain way whether through the complexity of proposals. Or the way people will interpret whatever "laws" your proposal will do.
 
Would you support a Fourth Branch of the U.S. Government?
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't. This is a bad idea not because people are too stupid and not because people shouldn't have more say in government. It's a messy idea and even if it's nonetheless a great, superb, ~*~American~*~ ideal of government by the people it's totally impractical. One might even say impossible without being accused of hyperbole.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
A lot of people in this thread gave off that idea. "People are too ignornant/too stupid to vote". I think that's a dangerous line of thought in a free society.
Click to expand...

People are too ignorant and stupid. But that's the entire point of having a representative democracy and the reasoning why the founding fathers decided against a direct democracy. Ever hear of the "tyranny of people"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top